Sad Emo:
People use the science of today to make sense of the creation story of the Bible. When something said there doesn't match what are known observable facts today, people will say "Well, you have to understand it like this, not like that."
For instance, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (KJV)
According to our best natural understanding, light came into existence quite immediately after the Big Bang - not after the planets had formed. That's pretty basic. "Well, obviously, but that verse is referring to the light from our sun shining upon the earth". OK, but our sun was also formed before the planet according to science [edited to say: planets formed from a disk around the sun, so you could say they formed at the same time, but I think the sun "sparked" and became a "nuclear furnace" before the planets were completely formed [/edited]. "OK.... but then this first light must have been emanating from God himself, it was the light of God". OK, but that kind of ruins the explanation for verse 16:
In verse 16, it says (14 and 15 first): "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good."
This verse is explained to mean that God "obviously" didn't create the sun and the moon at this point (why not? because science has found out that couldn't be the case, or because....?), but that the sun had been created in verse 1 already, and that this verse simply means that the rays of the sun for some reason didn't reach the surface of the earth until this point, or that from a human observer's perspective (had he been present), the atmosphere became clearer and the sun would become visible on earth at this point.
This creates two problems (at least):
1) There was a water firmament surrounding earth according to the Bible, and that water firmament or canopy was used in the deluge of Noah's day. All of earth was covered with this water (plus the waters of the deep), enough to go above any mountain (even though lower than today, still quite a few thousand feet high I'd think - otherwise you couldn't really call them mountains). With this water canopy surrounding earth - how would you be able to see the sun - or the moon? Do you see the sun even on a normal, cloudy day? But back then, there was a really thick water canopy surrounding earth. How could one say that the sun became more visible (from a human observer's perspective) on this day because the atmosphere cleared up, when there was this really thick layer of water around the globe?
2) God created grass and plants/trees on the third day: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
Since we're trying to establish if this story is scientifically correct (and if so, establish that Moses couldn't have known how this happened on his own), it's important to note that plants would have needed the sun in order to live. But the sun was created on the next day - which if you're an "old earth creationist" like JWs are, would have lasted several thousand years. Several thousand years for plants, with no sunlight. Yes, you could call in a miracle, but then this debate would be moot. You could say as I explained above that He didn't create the sun after the plants, but that the sun became visible, or it's rays came through on the day after the plants had been created, but then you'd still get the problems I mentioned above.
I am aware of the different Hebrew words used for the creation of the initial light and the sun; 'created' (bara') and 'made' ('asah) , but I don't see the big significance. When you just read the story as-is, it looks like God created light on the first day, but only after having made the heavens and earth. He made the sun and the moon on the fourth day. He made the plants and trees on the day before He made the sun. You can explain it away as I described, but it doesn't read as clearly and concisely as you'd think it would, coming directly from God Himself.
Why do we assume that the creation story must mean this-and-that which is in agreement with modern science when ever it seems to be contradicting modern science? Could it be because we know that's not how it could have happened, and since this is The creation story, we have to assume that we must interpret it differently than what is directly written?
Wouldn't that be a kind of circular logic?
Conversation: "This is the creation story as inspired by God. Just look at it and you'll see it agrees with science." "OK, I've looked at it, but it doesn't seem to agree with science to me?" "Well - you have to interpret it a different way for it to agree with science, but then it does. And then you'll see it must be the word of God."
I don't know. I may have missed something.
